Author
Topic: Grave Robbing (Read 21790 times)

I meant from a general, non-deity-specific pov. It would be hard to roleplay a paladin, as you would be forced to make money the hard way- by completing quests and gaining the rewards that way. Looting the corpses of those you killed (even against your desire to do so) is merely an extension of grave robbing, as somebody pointed out before.

Actually, the right of the victor to the horse, arms and armor of his attacker is built into the western codes of Chivalry on which the Paladin class is based. As long as he is honorably defending himself from attack, a Paladin would have no problem looting bodies.

I meant from a general, non-deity-specific pov. It would be hard to roleplay a paladin, as you would be forced to make money the hard way- by completing quests and gaining the rewards that way. Looting the corpses of those you killed (even against your desire to do so) is merely an extension of grave robbing, as somebody pointed out before.

Actually, the right of the victor to the horse, arms and armor of his attacker is built into the western codes of Chivalry on which the Paladin class is based. As long as he is honorably defending himself from attack, a Paladin would have no problem looting bodies.

_Data_

I rarely post but after reading this thread i felt compelled to add my point of view.

Remember that we are not talking about the real world here. This is FR where magic is common and people can rise up from the dead as undead if disturbed.

I would remind you of a certain encounter in BG1 where we meet a revenant(a dead person) who has risen from the dead to become undead because a thief has stolen his +2 dagger from his grave. In this case grave robbing had the consequence of denying the "soul" of the dead person his eternal rest and forcing him to exist as an undead monstrosity for who knows how long.

In this way i would say that in some cases grave robbing most definetly HAS a victim. Given how many graves you loot in the graveyard its very possible that in doing so the protagonist dooms atleast one dead person to a horrible existence as an undead creature for possibly centuries. I would call that evil.

I always figured the Crypt King was dead. So imagine I kill the living merchant and conman the Drunken Ronaldo just to find out that he now roams his tomb with his new title as Crypt King. I got hit for killing him in the streets, when still drunk, happy and blue circled. Do I deserve another hit for killing the undead Ronaldo erm King?

In this unfair game everybody and I mean everybody other than me has a shot at resurrection. Mr. Anchev has so many comebacks it is hard to tell, if he needs any armour at all. So there is the option to argue that there are no real dead (humanoids at least) in the FR. My point is still valid I think that, if you get a hit for taking something from a grave, the same should hold true for anything you take from a house. And, no, everything in the Guarded Compound would not be rightfully yours, because you provoked the fight.

Logged

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

_Data

I always figured the Crypt King was dead. So imagine I kill the living merchant and conman the Drunken Ronaldo just to find out that he now roams his tomb with his new title as Crypt King. I got hit for killing him in the streets, when still drunk, happy and blue circled. Do I deserve another hit for killing the undead Ronaldo erm King?

Well i would say that killing the undead is not evil an act at all since in doing so you might actually allow the poor soul to rest in peace. However doing something that you know has a good chance of dooming the innocent soul of someone who has died into undead existence is certainly evil i think.

I think it a question of knowledge of the possible consequences of your actions. If the protagonist knows that taking a dagger from a grave of another person might cause that person to rise from the dead because of the crime then yes that act is evil. However if the protagonist is under the (mistaken) impression that taking the dagger wont harm anyone then the act might not be as evil. In the first case he knows that his actions could seriously hurt an innocent victim(the soul) and yet he does it anyway. In the second case he thinks that its ok since no one will be hurt. In both cases the results might be the same but the intent is not.

Quote

In this unfair game everybody and I mean everybody other than me has a shot at resurrection. Mr. Anchev has so many comebacks it is hard to tell, if he needs any armour at all. So there is the option to argue that there are no real dead (humanoids at least) in the FR. My point is still valid I think that, if you get a hit for taking something from a grave, the same should hold true for anything you take from a house. And, no, everything in the Guarded Compound would not be rightfully yours, because you provoked the fight.

I understand that the whole Guarded compound building was somehow related to some slavery quest where entering might have been acceptable. However that quest was removed so right now what the protagonist does is:1.Enter a private house.2.Slaughter the inhabitants of that house for protecting their property.3.Steal all the loot from that house.

So yes that whole thing should give you a massive virtue penalty. There is no evidence that the people in that house are anything but law-abiding citizens and you simply barge in and slaughter them.

And yes i agree with you that entering the house of an innocent person and taking items for yourself from that house is without a doubt stealing and quite wrong. Infact i recall that there are places where stealing like this if someone sees you gets you attacked by guards and a reputation penalty to boot.

My point is still valid I think that, if you get a hit for taking something from a grave, the same should hold true for anything you take from a house. And, no, everything in the Guarded Compound would not be rightfully yours, because you provoked the fight.

Everytime you take something from a private house, you should get a virtue hit. No, I'm not joking. It's thievery.

Nalia's kidnapping will give you a reason to enter the Guarded Compound. If you've done that quest, you have a dialog exposing the inhabitants as the Slave-lords. If you've had that dialog, you should be able to ransack the compound without a penalty. If you haven't, then CHARNAME is a common murderer and should lose virtue accordingly.

Well i would say that killing the undead is not evil an act at all since in doing so you might actually allow the poor soul to rest in peace.

You could say that of killing anyone. There are good liches. A lich could be Lawful Good, love pursuing and gaining knowledge, and enjoy beind undead as much as anyone ever enjoys being alive--and would you still say killing the lich for being undead would be "not evil at all"?

Logged

Beauty standing amidst fiery destruction.

_Data_

You could say that of killing anyone. There are good liches. A lich could be Lawful Good, love pursuing and gaining knowledge, and enjoy beind undead as much as anyone ever enjoys being alive--and would you still say killing the lich for being undead would be "not evil at all"?

Well i would be the first to admit that my knowledge of FR lore is limited so feel free to correct me if i am wrong but i believe that there is a big difference between the two.

A lich that has managed to remain good through the transformation WANTS to be a lich correct? He has done all the rituals to transform himself out of his own free will. He wants to remain a lich and is happy as he is. If the lich wanted release he could simply kill himself since this is something he is capable of. If this lich did not hurt anyone then i see no reason why he should not be allowed to remain in peace.

A revenant on the other hand is someone who has risen from the dead because his physical remains have been disturbed correct? He does not WANT to be an undead and wishes rest but cannot do so until he regains the item that has been stolen from him. In BG1 you encounter a thief who has grave robbed a dagger which he then proceeds to give to you, you can then enter the grave and give the dagger to the revenant and when you do he says something about being able to rest and be in peace now and collapses.

The difference here is obviously free will. The revenant is forced into undead form against his will. A protagonist that robs a grave might be responsible for an innocent soul being enslaved into undead form for who knows how long. It would be comparable to a powerfull necromancer somehow capturing the soul of an innocent and transforming it into undead.

In any case the presence of revenants proves that in some cases there remains a link between the possessions and the spirit of the deceased. In my view this makes grave robbing quite wrong since you are not only stealing from another being (the soul) but also risking that being returning from the dead in an effort to recover what has been stolen from him.

And finally lets not forget that even if the deceased did not care about his mortal posessions anymore grave robbing would still not be a victimless crime. Consider the wife of a soldier that was a good and kind person. Now consider that this soldier dies. It should be obvious that the wife who loved his husband dearly would be quite bereaved at his death. Now consider if this wife were to make sure that the very valuable wedding ring who was worn by the soldier remained in his hand while he was buried, something that gives the grief stricken wife some measure of comfort. Now consider the emotional and mental turmoil this poor wife would go through if she learned that someone had callously robbed this wedding ring from the hand of her husbands dead body? I would say that in this case there is most certainly a victim to grave robbing. The wife who is unable to grieve properly because of the actions of a cruel grave robbing adventurer.

This does not even consider the fact that according to law that valuable wedding ring might very well belong to the widow and as such taking it from the grave where the widow has stored it would be no different from stealing from a shopkeeper. Stealing may not be as big a crime as murder or creating a revenant but it still a crime, something that a paladin for instance should not be able to do.

Well, I should mention that technically speaking, revenants are rather badly misused in both BG and NWN. A revenant is supposed to be obsessed with one thing--finding its killer. Not finding the thief who robbed its body, and certainly not (as in NWN) acting as a general-purpose mook who attacks random adventurers.

Thinking about what Kish said above I think you should get a Virtue hit for killing VanGoethe in Amkethran (please excuse my spelling), since there is a peacefull and righteous solution to this. I dunno, if you already get one, because I never kill him, but it is possible IIRC.

Logged

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

I think he only keeps her soul as a warrant for the trade. I mean she recovers just fine after I told Marlowe to keep his part of the bargain. Pacta sunt servanda even with Mephisto I think. It is not that Marlowe has not profited from the trade.

I think the distinction between religiosity and morality is wrong as both are part of the human nature. The specific context and the content of both is up to the society and history, but the transcendent principle is always there.

Logged

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

I think he only keeps her soul as a warrant for the trade. I mean she recovers just fine after I told Marlowe to keep his part of the bargain. Pacta sunt servanda even with Mephisto I think. It is not that Marlowe has not profited from the trade.

That's...nice. What does it have to do with anything? What did she do to justify Vongoethe stealing her soul from her? You are aware of her as a separate entity with, you know, rights, and not a piece of her father's property, aren't you? (Nobody even think about saying something like, "Well, she's actually just a bunch of pixels.")

(For that matter, Vongoethe doesn't ever return her soul to her--as if it matters. He gives it to you and says, "Here, do whatever you want with it, it can be quite useful to you.")

Quote

I think the distinction between religiosity and morality is wrong as both are part of the human nature.

I'm afraid you've completely lost me. Many things are part of human nature; that doesn't make it any less inaccurate to say that religion is the foundation of morality.

I think he only keeps her soul as a warrant for the trade. I mean she recovers just fine after I told Marlowe to keep his part of the bargain. Pacta sunt servanda even with Mephisto I think. It is not that Marlowe has not profited from the trade.

That's...nice. What does it have to do with anything? What did she do to justify Vongoethe stealing her soul from her?

(For that matter, Vongoethe doesn't ever return her soul to her--as if it matters. He gives it to you and says, "Here, do whatever you want with it, it can be quite useful to you.")

Obviously he does not have any means to get hold of Marlowe himself. Why he can do this to his family, but not to him escapes me and is another minus in the endless misery that is TOB, but he has a big problem (not unlike Shylock). As a lich he cannot do much in normal human terms like asking local authorities. Justified?? By no means, but isn't Marlow really the one to blame for entering into such a bargain without consideration what might happen, if he does not keep his end of the bargain? I know that killing VG is the quick fix for the situation, but isn't it a bit easy to just kill the lich? After all Marlowe had a quite selfish plan behind this IIRC, personal wealth. Shouldn't he be held reponsible too? I see your point about his wife and daughter, but the poorly drafted scene does not give me enough background info why the situation is as it is ATM. As for the soul. Yes you get it and you can always give it back. Where is the problem? BTW: Do you get a hit for keeping the soul? You are definitely going to hurt or rather kill somebody.

I think the distinction between religiosity and morality is wrong as both are part of the human nature.

I'm afraid you've completely lost me.

As always. Crayon argued that religion was an invention of man whereas morality was innate. I think morality and religion are both achievements of our brain and our existance as social beings. Even an agnostic or an atheist recognizes religion as a category, morality is a basic human conditio-sine-qua-non for human coexistance (i.e. you have to have it). I think it has been around forever as simple code-of-conduct. Its special traits may vary from society to society or century to century, but they always existed in a certain form. That is why I rejected that distinction. Neither is a prerequisite nor foundation for/of the other.

Logged

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Obviously he does not have any means to get hold of Marlowe himself. Why he can do this to his family, but not to him escapes me

He explains that. He could take Marlowe's soul by force, but a soul taken by force is worthless for his spell. So he tortures and kills those close to Marlowe as a means of convincing Marlowe to offer his own soul.

Quote

Justified?? By no means, but isn't Marlow really the one to blame for entering into such a bargain without consideration what might happen, if he does not keep his end of the bargain?

Why does there have to be only one to blame? Argue that not killing Marlowe should carry a Virtue penalty, if you like, but not that there should be a Virtue penalty for killing a murderer and thief of souls!

Quote

I see your point about his wife and daughter, but the poorly drafted scene does not give me enough background info why the situation is as it is ATM.

You know, by Vongoethe's own word, that he took the soul of Marlowe's wife (killing her) and means to do the same to his daughter unless he gets something from someone who isn't either of them. Don't make the situation more complicated than it is. It's not evil to kill someone who freely admits to having killed innocent people by stealing their souls.

Quote

As for the soul. Yes you get it and you can always give it back. Where is the problem?

You had said:

Quote

I mean she recovers just fine after I told Marlowe to keep his part of the bargain.

That's no credit to Vongoethe. He didn't give her her soul back, or even express any concern whatsoever as to what you did with it once you had it.

Ok, I admit having been completely wrong about VG. I shall break his almost decaying body into pieces next time I see him. Promised. A hit for not killing Marlowe would be an overreaction even for me. He can still fullfill his side of the contract. For me Marlowe is still partly to blame, if he knew about the circumstances and the special requirements of this spell. He put his family in danger in my eyes for he knew his soul was save (as argued above as being useless, if taken by force), but with the slightest imagination he could always assume that VG would try to force him and hurt his family. VG is not Louis Cipher, but Angel Heart is a good example of somebody who tries to trick his counterpart. You are right about it though and I admit it wholeheartedly.

Do you get a hit for keeping her soul?

I am glad you had no complaints about the second bit (religion vs. morality) this time. Either I made myself clear (which is rare) or I confused you beyond any valid responses.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2004, 07:37:00 PM by jester »

Logged

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Whoever said you had to successfully pick-pocket someone for it to be a bad thing? A virtue hit should incure whenever you use pick pockets, not just suceed. However, someone brought up the very valid point of "is a pick-pocket really Neutral Evil" (which, after picking pockets many times, they would become)? In the scenario this person set up (who I can't remember their name; sorry!), the pick pocket doesn't kill people, doesn't beat his wife, and is generally only bad in the sense that he steals things. That doesn't sound like a neutral evil person. So, perhaps a cap could be applied to virtue loss through pick-pocketing (you can't fall below CN etc.).

Logged

"It makes far better sense to reshape ourselves to fit a finite planet than to attempt to reshape the planet to fit our infinite wants."

As I've said before, Virtue needs to allocate points depending on your current virtue. A scale of 20 simply isn't enough to allocate them blindly. Virtue should try level you out at the right virtue, rather than just adding and removing. It should decide that a pickpocket is around a virtue 12, then aim to take you no lower unless you start commiting more serious crimes, etc.